Historic List of Plans

Looking for a plans of a Maine 2-Footer? The Maine On2 FAQ has posted a historical listing for each of the railroads.  Follow the links to find the plans you want!

A few other reference links are also posted on the FAQ

Posted in Drawings and Plans | Leave a comment

Maine On2 FAQ

Terry Smith and a few others have re-created a new and better Maine On2 FAQ.  The FAQ was published by Bill Kerr from 2000 till 2012.  In 2013 Terry Smith and others with the support of Bill brought the content back the web for all to see.  Terry’s team has re-organized the information and enhancing it with more photos.

The web site is more than “modeling the Maine Two-Footers in On2″ it is also a place to find general modeling information such as this post “What are the Maine Two-Footers” and this post “Right of Way, trackwork, ties, and ballast”.  It’s a resource for anyone modeling the Maine 2-Footers or narrow gauge.

The contributors are a who’s who of On2 modelers and Maine 2-Foot historians.  Be sure to go to the “home” page to see links by contributor, railroad, manufacturer, modelers.

Bill Kerr passed away in the summer of 2013 after battling health issues for a few years.  I will miss his presence on the Maine 2-Foot modeling forums.  Bill and I had shared information on the SR&RL several times.  I never got to visit his On2 SR&RL, but from the photos, I can tell it was a delight.  You can see Bill’s On2 SR&RL on the Maine On2 FAQ.

Thanks Bill and thanks Terry and Co. the new Maine On2 FAQ is a tribute to Bill.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

To CAD or not to CAD? That is the question when starting a track plan

This week on the yahoogroup Maine-Two-Foot-Modelers-Forum Lee Rainey wrote:  “I strongly recommend a CAD program as a layout design tool.”  The statement made me ask, “Do I strongly recommend CAD for layout design?”

Rather than answer the question directly, let me state why I use XTrkCAD in my track planning.

WHY I USE XTrkCAD

  • It’s Free! – I use XTrkCAD 3.1.4 which is available in the files section of the XTrkCad yahoo group – http://groups.yahoo.com/group/XTrkCad/files/xtc32314.exe – You’ll have to join the group to access the files section.  If you try to use it, you’ll have to use the registration instructions in the same folder – “XTrkCad REGISTRATION INSTRUCTIONS.txt”
  • XTrkCAD 3.1.4 runs on all my PC laptops including my old XP system.  Although the help no longer works on Windows7 (I’m told there is a way to get around that).  Newer open source versions exist too.  4.0.3 seems to be available in the same folder in the yahoo group.  I think it supports other OS’s too.  I think the 3.1.4 version was the last production version by Sillub Technologies.  To get started with later versions try the Wiki
  • Easily enforce Minimum Radius – XTrkCAD has a minimum radius for a layout, when set, any radius less than that value is highlighted.  It’s easy to set a value or larger when inserting curves.
  • Tools to create and insert turnouts – XTrkCAD has pre-defined turnouts or the user can create their own.  I created my own for Sn2.  This ensured accuracy.  I even created special turnouts (shorter straight on the end) so that I could insert turnouts that conform to angle but are modified as I’d modify to install in tight locations.  I use these smaller versions often, and this ensures I have proper dimension through the frogs.  On paper designs it’s easy to cheat on turnout dimensions and create an plan that cannot be built.
  • Easements – XTrkCAD supports easements, and they can be automatic on all curves.
  • Smart Connection of Track – XTrkCAD has the ability to connect track in many ways.  It can connect snap track, it can tangentially connect two tracks and cut off the ends on the fly, it can extend turnouts linearly  it can bend the end of a track, it can split track.  All of these are smart because the CAD tool is Model Railroad specific.
  • Concept diagrams (like John Armstrong’s squares) are easy to do.  For example these concepts I did for Gary White’s Sn2 K&DR (Concepts) or my own Dream Sn2 SR&RL layout (Concept #2 or Concept #6)
  • XTrkCAD can connect modules as I did to generate designs for the Sn2 Crew Layouts (Hickory or St. Louis).  A free-mo setup like this requires trial an error to optimize the setup to fit a specific space.
  • XTrkCAD can calculate grades – This is crucial when creating multi-deck layouts and wanting to determine the impact of having level towns vs. graded towns etc…  See this example image of grade chart generated from one of the concepts for my Sn2 SR&RL.
  • It’s for Designing Model Railroads - In my job, I have access to many high end CAD systems with full drafting.  However, I’d never use them to design a model railroad as they are not tuned for that.  Doing the features I mention above would time consuming if not impossible on these 10-30 thousand dollar systems.

Other Features Of Interest

  • Print Full-Size – XTrkCAD can print the layout full size to many sheets of paper that can be laid on benchwork or plywood or other.  I usually do not use such a method (possibly because i’m against wasting the paper).  Instead I transfer visually making tweaks as required.
  • Full-Size Triangulation - XTrkCAD does not support this, but I think 3rd Planit does.  It is possible to fix two points in the room, and 3PI will calculate the distance of any other point from those two.  Having this would make it easier to transfer designs.
  • 3D Scenery – XTrkCAD does not support 3D scenery, but 3PI and other model railroad CAD packages do.  I see 3D in my head and would prefer to build the scenery rather than design it in detail.  I will do 2D scenery, which XTrkCAD does support and I often enhance using Paint or other programs.
  • Structures – It is possible to make footprints of a structure and reuse that in any design.  Some HO structures are already available.  3D structure might be possible, but I’ve not explored that.  I think the other packages such as 3PI support 3D structures
  • 3D Benchwork and Walk Through’s - Like 3D scenery, not supported by XTrkCAD, but 3PI does support (possibly others too).  Again, I’m not that interested in a 3D walk through.

FINAL COMMENTS

  • The justification of using CAD to design a model railroad is an individual choice.
  • Success will depend on tool selected and time one is willing to put into the project.
  • The more complex the project the more benefit the CAD tool can provide.
  • No matter how much CAD work is done some redesign will occur during construction of the layout.  Each person will have a different threshold on how far to take a design (time/money)
  • Some modelers might be better off getting someone else to help them with the CAD design or even to pay someone else to do the CAD design (trade design for structures or rolling stock)

For me, CAD has it’s place but I do not use it for all aspects of layout design or to the 100% mark.  So I CAD sometimes, possibly more than not.

Posted in Trackplanning, XTrkCAD | 2 Comments

Eastern Loggers – A great experience for me….

When I was 14, I joined the Eastern Loggers.  The group was building a sectional railroad inspired by a series of books call The Logging Railroad Era of Lumbering in Pennsylvania.    The group had just formed, so I was getting in on the ground floor.  This group taught me about modeling excellence, working with others, managing projects, and interacting with the public.  I still look back at those years from age 14-35 with fondness and would like to share some of the past with you now.

The following material comes from what was narrowtracks.com

Introduction

Welcome to the Eastern Loggers Home Page a site devoted to the Eastern Loggers Model Railroad Club, its members, followers, and the railroads and industries that inspired it.

In 1981, Jerry Strangarity and John Burchnall founded the Eastern Loggers Model Railroad Club. The idea was to build a sectional layout based on the 13 book series, The Logging Railroad Era of Lumbering in Pennsylvania, by Walter Casler, Thomas Taber, and Benjamin Kline. A few years earlier, Jerry had built a diorama of a typical Pennsylvania Logging town. The club layout was a much larger version of the same theme.

The original layout design called for 6 sections to form a 10′x10′ layout. However, within a few months, the group expanded, adding two more modules to the design. Over the years, the layout has been improved, by the addition of backdrops, DCC, two more sections, and most recently staging yards.

Each year, the Eastern Loggers appear at the November Show, which is put on by division 7 of the Mid-Central region of the NMRA (Cincinnati). Besides that, the layout makes occasional appearances at other events such as Mini-Bunch meets, National Narrow Gauge Conventions, and NMRA conventions. We will be open for the 2003 Mid Central Region NMRA meet at the end of April.

Construction

John Burchnall design the specification for sections.  One of the innovative features of the construction was the use of foam board.  John spent many years giving clinics about foam board, and now it is one of the leading/recommended techniques not just for lightweight module construction but also for home layout use.  Bill Darnaby even credited John as providing his inspiration.

I must state that the Eastern Loggers used beaded foam (white), not blue or pink or green foam.  The beaded foam is lighter and easier to carve than the more dense blue foam.  However, beaded foam is not good for carving scenery.  Beaded foam requires plaster on top.  Other modelers such as Sam Swanson have done wonders carving high density blue foam into hills and rock formations without any plaster at all, keeping modules and layouts lighter and plaster free (Sames modeling techniques have been published in MR, NG&SLG, Light Iron Digest, etc….)

Here are specifications sheets

Overview of basic Eastern Loggers Module (by John Burchnall – 1982)

The Eastern Loggers layout is composed of modules. Each module consists of 5 major components:

  1. 2×2″ wood legs, which are self standing and fit in slot in the frame.
  2. 1×4″ “Inverted L-girder” frame. Actually, it is a true upright “L”.
  3. Foam Board for scenery and roadbed support. The grades for the roadbed are carved directly in to the foam and the roadbed is layed directly on top.
  4. 3/16″ or 1/4″ Upson board roadbed. At present, upson board is no longer available. Possible substitutes are Homabed, Luan Board (like the doors, not the plywood), or homosote. Grades carved directly into foam may have imperfections (dips and humps). A stiff roadbed is needed to smooth out the imperfections. Cork is too flexible to cover the dips, Homabed is questionable, upson board was perfect.
  5. 1/8″ Masonite fascia boards. The masonite is screwed and clued to the side of the module. Wood blocks are glued into the foam for screws. Not shown on the drawing are corner blocks. These are 1×2′s placed vertically into the corners of the module, they make the corners square.

Additional Notes:

Always use foam compatible glues when gluing layers of the foam.  

Underview of a module (by John Burchnall – 1981)

The under view shows the slots where the legs slid into. Leg stops (4) prevent the legs from pushing directly against the foam. The cross brace (5) on the bottom of the module is not needed. The foam provides a sufficient stability. Note, the design provides for leg extensions.

After a few years of moving the modules to shows, it became clear that they were over built.  The frame could have been significantly lighter, the 1×4′s were over kill.  But they have lasted the test of time (30 years as of this writing). 

One interesting happening was that Jerry Strangarity’s Sawmill module (our most delicate) was in an automobile accident.  He was pulling through an intersection when a car ran the stop signs at 55 miles an hour, hit the rear of his car.  First of all he and any passengers of his car were OK (I do not remember injuries in the other car either).  However, the module was….well….better than expected.  The wood frame was shattered and the masonite sites were broken loose, and all the white metal sawmill details were spread throughout the car. But the delicate structures were intact.  The beaded foam seemed to have absorbed the blow…..

Trackplan – GMR 1997

For me, one of the greatest accomplishments for the Eastern Loggers was the appearance in the 1997 issue of Great Model Railroads.  Here is the trackplan from that issue (Kalmbach gave permission to publish on my old web site, so assuming still OK to publish).  To see the full article get the new DVD from Kalmbach (coming out soon).

Eastern Loggers track plan as published in Great Model Railroad 1997

For reference here is a listing of primary modeler (might not have been owner)

  • Sawmill Complex (Laquin, PA)- Jerry Strangarity – Left most section
  • Tannery (Leetonia, PA) – Paul Miklos – Upper left
  • Mine Prop Interchange – David Keith – Upper, 2nd from left
  • Wood Chemical Plant (Mayburg, PA) – Paul Miklos – Upper, 2nd from left
  • Gunpowder mill (DuPont – Hagley, DE) – John Burchnall – Upper, right
  • Switchback – Larry Pockrus – Right most section
  • Highline bridge – John Burchnall – Lower right
  • Rural Sawmill – Mike Tener – Lower 2nd from right
  • High line log camp – Mike Merenes – Lower 2nd from left
  • Sawmill Lumber stacks (theme changed after this article) – John Burchnall – Lower left

All sections were 30×60″ with the exception of the Sawmill complex that was 36×60″

Sawmill Complex

The sawmill complex was the premiere section of the layout.  It was built by Jerry Strangarity.  Jerry written a series of articles about his Pennsylvania logging town for RMC (various issues in the late 1970′s or early 1980′s).  This section was imagined to be an extension of that diorama.  The diorama was never part of the Eastern Loggers layout.

The interior of the Laquin bandsaw mill. Jerry Strangarity built the complex using board by board construction. The interior details are Keystone detail parts

The focal point of the Eastern Loggers Layout is a large Mill Complex. The center piece of the scene is the band saw mill which features full interior. From the pond there is a second slip jack that serves the barrel and stave mill. The final structure on the section is the kindling wood factory. All of the structures were built by Jerry Stangarity. He placed the structure based on a photo of the town of Laquin, PA.

The roof’s of the band sawmill can be removed to expose the interior. The second store room is occupied by the saw filer. The filer services the hundreds of teeth on the blades for the band saw. Saw dust is swept through the floor of the sawmill, then put on a conveyor which takes it to the boiler house. Part of the boiler house and conveyor are just visible to the left of the mill. The mill pond and the log dump are in the background.

Here is an overview of the mill complex. At right is the kindling wood factory, to the left is the drying shed for the barrels and staves, at the rear is the band sawmill.

Elevated trestles are used to move the sawn wood to the lumber yard. Electricity for the lamps is provided by generators hooked up to the sawmills engine. The engines which powered the belts were located under the sawmill floor. Actually, the sawmill floor was raised off the ground.

The loading dock is for the barrel and stave mill. At left is the kindling wood factory. The barrels weren’t assembled prior to shipping, the recipient would assemble them on at their site.

A good view of the kindling wood factory. The wood was cut in the smaller building at right. Steam heat was used to dry the wood. The tall building at the right had pipes through which the steam passed, drying the wood. The conveyor between the two buildings transferred the wood to the top of the drying building.

After these photos were taken, Paul Miklos expanded the sawmill’s lumber yard to the adjacent module.  The new yard wraps around the Mountain and seem to head up the valley like many prototype photos from the PA logging books.  Paul hand cut much of the lumber in those stacks which are individual stacks up to 30 HO feet high!  Paul is a nut….

Tannery

The tannery module had a few owners and many contributors to the final scene.  When Ed Heage was owner, he adopted Leetonia (see book 4 of the PA logging series) as the inspiration.  He built a tannery building and the company store.  However, he never completed the tannery complex before leaving the club for other activities, so only the store remains of his work.  The following photos show the combined work of several members.

Overview of tannery module is inspired by photo, page 4xx book #4 of the Logging Railroad Era of Lumbering in Pennsylvania.  The trees in the photos of this photo are part of the section.  Ed added a steep hillside to the section, so that one could look over the trees in a similar fashion to a photo in the PA logging book.  It worked out well, and forced viewers to look around the scene from specific angles.

The tannery and surrounding company town are inspired by the town of Leetonia, PA. Leetonia featured a large tannery, sawmill, town, and railroad facilities. The placement of the buildings on the tannery module loosely follow the placement of buildings in lower portion of Leetonia. The major difference is that the model tannery is on the opposite end of town.

The majority of the modeling on this section was done by Paul Miklos. The exceptions being the company houses which were built by Clarke O’Byrne, the company store built by Ed Heeg, and the CPL office and Post Office built by David Keith.

The company houses were built by Clarke O’bern. Paul Miklos built the privies, sheds, and added the details.

Farm animals were common in Leetonia. This house is the exception, having pigs. Most families had cows. The cows would graze in the pastures above town, returning each twice a day for milking.

The Shaut Company store, built by Ed Heage, was a gathering point for the men of Leetonia. On payday, the men would line up at the Horizontal window of the CPL office.

The engine house has a full interior.  To make it easy to see, the side wall can be removed.  The bark stacks extended onto the interchange module to blend the scenes.

Wood Chemical Plant (Factory)

The retort building of the chemical plant. Cord wood entered the retort building in metal rack cars

The chemical plant is inspired by the Tionesta Valley Chemical Companies plant at Mayburg, PA. The prototype plant was one for largest acetic acid plants in Pennsylvania. It featured 12 retorts and was made out of brick instead of the more common metal siding. Inside a chemical plant, wood is distilled, to capture the gasses that escape. The most important product of the distillation process was the acetic acid or acetate of lime. Acetic acid was used as a fixative for dyes, very important during World War I. Another product that resulted from the distillation process was charcoal.

The model plant is significantly compressed from the prototype. It only features 4 retorts (tracks) and does not feature the cooling chambers and sheds at the behind the retort building. There just was not enough space. All of the buildings, cord wood stacks, and rack cars were built by Paul Miklos.  

The retort building is at the rear of this photo. The other large buildings contain the still house. The stills were used to condense and separate the gasses. Paul also build the 30′ flat cars with racks on top. Throughout Pennsylvania, Cord wood was hauled in cars similar to these.

Other Sections

At this time, I do not have any photos of the other modules ready for publication.  Time permitting, I can update this post again…

Train Control – DC to DCC – No Shorts!

John Burchnall had designed a complex 8 CAB DC system using rotary switches.  A CAB for each original module.  It worked but was a lot of wiring that we never really used.

In 1994 Lenz DCC had been released and was being sold here in town by John Mann (of Mann-Made products fame & CTC-16 and such).  I was single, not married and had money.  So I purchased a Lenz system and 4 decoders (LS-100′s) that I installed into AHM heislers during the two weeks before biggest show of the year.  I also made a throttle bus that could be plugged onto the layout (6 stations, no plug and play yet).  The first time the system was run on the layout, was at the show….It all worked perfectly and we never looked back to DC again.  It was a few years before other display layouts began appearing with DCC control.

Later we switched to Digitrax because it had radio control and because I thought it was time for the club to invest in it’s own DCC system.  The radio control was never as reliable as our plug in Lenz LH-100 throttles.  The more complex digitrax throttles made it hard to  work the layout and steal engines (commonly required when operating a show layout).  Actually, Lenz let’s multiple throttles control a locomotive, no “stealing”.  For the club it would have been better to stay Lenz (I think Digitrax has gotten better and now has simpler UT throttles with radio control….so matters might not be so complicated today)

One special feature designed into the layout was stopping blocks.  These are locomotive length sections of track beyond each turnout frog.  The stopping blocks prevented trains entering a wrongly thrown turnout from fouling a turnout or worse creating a short.  These stopping blocks are one reason the Eastern Loggers layout worked well when the switch to DCC happened.  The layout rarely suffered from shutdowns due to shorts.  Honestly it was not till several years later that I understood why other layouts (not having stopping blocks) needed short circuit detection.

Listing of PA Logging Books

The Logging Railroad Era of Lumbering in Pennsylvania by Benjamin Kline Jr, Walter Casler, and Thomas Taber III. A series of 13 books about lumbering in Pennsylvania. Additionally, Kline and Taber have each written additional books about Pennsylvania Lumbering.

  1. Pitch Pine and Prop Timber by Kline
  2. “Wild Catting” on the Mountain by Kline
  3. Ghost Lumber Towns of Central Pennsylvania by Taber
  4. Sunset Along Susquehanna Waters by Taber
  5. The Goodyears – An Empire in the Hemlocks by Taber
  6. Whining Saws and Squealing Flanges by Casler
  7. Sawmills Among the Derricks by Taber
  8. Tionesta Valley by Casler
  9. Teddy Collins Empire by Casler
  10. Tanbark, Alcohol, and Lumber by Taber
  11. Allegheny Valley Logging Railroads by Casler
  12. Dinkies, Dams, and Sawdust by Kline
  13. Stemwinders” in the Laurel Highlands by Kline

Books 1, 2, 12, & 13 by Kline were printed recently by the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania. They are available from the museum for about $10 US each. Book 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 have also been reprinted recently enough to be available. The 2nd Floor Bookstore at the Strasburg Railroad has these books written by Tabor. The books written by Casler are not being sold new. Check Ebay or used book sources.

In addition to these books, Tabor went on to publish a few other books about specific logging railroads and shortlines of Pennsylvania.  He was still alive in the late 1990′s and was still doing his own railroad research.  All of the Kline photos and Klines letters to Tabor and Casler are in the collections of the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania logging was different from West Virginia, Michigan or West Coast and the books above are a great way to learn the specifics of Pennsylvania logging.

Parting Comments

By 2009, marriage, a son, and a move to the other side of town, I had willingly limited my participation in the club; so I sold my section to another member of the club, ending 20+ years of active involvement.  It was not an easy choice but the reality, I had moved on to Sn2 Free-mo and trying to get back to my Dream home layout.

My years as an eastern logger were a great experience for me.  I look back at them fondly.  I must thank my parents for encouraging me to become involved at the age of 14.  For the first 2 years (until I could drive) my dad would take me to meetings.  Additionally, when I joined, he already had the set of the logging books (he came from California, what was he doing with a set of books based on PA logging?). His railroad library fueled my fascination for two of my favorite prototypes (PA Logging and Maine 2-Foot).

I’d also like to thank of the Eastern Loggers for letting me, at a young age, partake in the club as an equal not as a junior.  My involvement with the club formed me as a person, in the hobby, home, and most importantly professionally.

Posted in Eastern Loggers | Leave a comment

Dream Sn2 SR&RL: Concept #6 – Partial Double Deck

A concept diagram is a sketch to see what will fit into a given space.  Additionally, I can use the profile capabilities in XTrkCAD to estimate track length and grades.  Only the fittest concepts move on to become detailed plans.

Concept #6 is a limited double deck arrangement.  The focus is on the F&M (100′ mainline Strong to Bigelow) and the SRRR (75′ mainline Farmington to Phillips).  The design focuses on simple early phases, and having a high duck-under at the entrance.  That avoids the ceiling beams and heating ducts.  The focus is on the SRRR (Farmington to Phillips) and the F&M (Strong to Bigelow).  It reflects that modeling the P&R (Phillips to Rangeley) is not that important to me.

Reference map of the SR&RL

The Concept

This design puts Carrabassett and Bigelow on the upper deck over the top of Farmington.

Bigelow has a good good room, but I’ll have to squeeze the approaching curve to fit my existing Free-mo module.  There is room for the sawmill, but it must fit around the concrete column (holds up the fire place, can’t be moved).  The 25′ of F&M over Farmington is ample to include Carrabassett and some other logging.

Kingfield is on a stub, but a mirror imaged.  An acceptable compromise possible because of the way the stairs shape the room.  Salem and Starbirds are also represented.  Strong is shaped as per the prototype.

The rest of the middle of the room is available for Phillips and the P&R to Rangeley.

Concept #6: Upper deck, the F&M above Kingfield to Bigelow

Concept #6: Lower deck phases 1&2

Phases

A railroad like this is a life time project (20 years or more).  So I’d like to have phases.  Here’s how I see the phases.

  • Phase 1:  Upper Deck to Loop:  Bigelow, Carrabassett, Kingfield, Salem, Starbirds, Phillips loop (loop is temporary)
  • Phase 2: Strong and Free-mo Farmington
  • Phase 3: Replace Phillips loop with Philllips and some P&R

The first two phases are great.  Phase 1 is loop to Bigelow.  Can be operated much like the real F&M.  Would require 2-3 operators and 3-4 locos (something I can do today).

Phase 2 would add Strong and Farmington.  Initially, they could be operated as one mainline from Bigelow to Farmington.  At this point in time, I’d have 4 of my 5 favorite locations (Bigelow, Kingfield, Strong, & Farmington).

Phase 3 would add Phillips and possibly some more.  It is the some more that is a challenge and discussed further in this post.

Grades

The key grades are around the room to get from Farmington (40″) to Bigelow (60″).  The 20″ difference gives room for benchwork on the top deck.  The grade would be around 1.5% if the towns were on grade.  Keeping the towns level, results in 1.5% to 3% grades.  I set the stiffest grade of 2.9% between Starbirds and Salem, where the prototype had a 4% grade.

The duck-under at the entrance to the room is a manageable clearance height of 50-52″.  Even at 6’4″ tall, I can glide under when the duck-under is a wide 48″.

Concept #6: Track profile, Farmington to Bigelow

One height concern is that Strong is only 44″ above the floor, and only 8″ above the high workbench I had planned there.  Additionally there is a sink and the vent for my spray booth that I hoped would sit on top of the work bench.  If strong were only 12″ wide, this might be manageable, but it is more likely to be 18-24″ at this location.  This height is on the low end for a duck-under for F&M operators to reach the Strong turntable.

Phase 3 – Option 1

In phase 3, the Phillips loop is to be replaced with a complete Phillips and some of the P&R north to Rangeley.  I’ve drafted several options for that, but all of them are underwhelming.  All of them get in Phillips, Madrid (or some middle location) and Rangeley.  Having just two locations north of Phillips seems lame.  4-5 towns seems better, or maybe just a reversing loop (a reversing loop enable equipment to be reused as the prototype did).  Maybe Madrid and a reversing loop would be optimal.

Option 1 contains Phillips, Madrid, Rangeley, and a branch for logging.

Concept #1: Phase 3 option 1 for Phillips and on to Rangeley

Phase 3 Option 2

Similar to Option 1, Option 2 has a short logging branch.  In both option 1&2, Madrid and Rangeley are close together adding to the “lame factor”.  In both Phillips is well represented and has it’s proper curve to the right when approaching from Strong.

Concept #6: Phase 3 Option 2 for Phillips and on to Rangeley

Phase 3 Option 3

Option 3 makes the best use of the space, has the longest run, and longest distance between locations.  It does not support a logging branch as well. and worst of all, it flips Phillips around.  It could be modeled prototypically, but trains would be entering the wrong end, or it could be modeled in mirror or some odd combination.

All of the options suffer with a short run.  There is no good place to have a reversing loop or staging.  If the railroad terminates at Rangeley, then it can go uphill to obtain a better viewing height of say 53-55″ at Rangeley.

Operations

Phase 1 would operate well with 3 operators to run the full contingent of F&M trains.  With phase 2 the same 3 operators could run all the way to Farmington or 2 additional crews could be added to operated the SRRR between Farmington and Phillips.  This full layout could keep 7+ operators busy in TT&TO operations.  Positions that could be modeled:

  • Dispatcher
  • 1-2 Station Agents
  • 1 Farmington to Rangeley through Passenger Train crews (could use a single consist, less to model)
  • 2 SRRR/P&R crews (Farmington to Phillips to Rangeley)
  • 2-3 F&M crews (Strong to Bigelow)

Each crew would have it’s own engine, so that’s only 6-8 engines locomotives (Reasonably close to the current 5 available).

Things I like about this concept

  • Reasonable project with good phasing for construction.
  • Includes the my top locations to model.

Things I don’t like about this concept

  • Final phase (phase 3) seems “lame”
Posted in Layout Design, The Dream | 2 Comments

Dream Sn2 SR&RL: Concept #5- Another attempt at Single Deck

A concept diagram is a sketch to see what will fit into a given space.  Additionally, I can use the profile capabilities in XTrkCAD to estimate track length and grades.  Only the fittest concepts move on to become detailed plans.

Concepts #3 and #4 focused on the SRRR (Farmington to Phillips) and the F&M (Strong to Bigelow) and Concept #5 does the same in a single deck form.  The single deck simplifies construction and phasing.

Reference map of the SR&RL

The Concept

Rather than mushrooming Farmington and Bigelow, Concept #5 places the two locations back to back on opposite sides of a backdrop.  An optional connection between Bigelow and Farmington as well as another connection at the Phillips covered bridge to Strong could make for a large loop to loop for continuous running (with auto reversing).  Possibly a better option would be to complete the continuous run, be reconnecting the Rangeley staging to the south end of Kingfield.

Bigelow would have plenty of length to add the Sawmill.  Farmington’s upper yard would have to bend or be omitted.  Strong has it’s natural curve to the left (going north from Farmington) and Phillips has its prototype curve to the right (going north from Strong).  However, Phillips is scrunched and aisle way is tight.

Kingfield, as the hub of the F&M has potential but still remains tight (Similar to Concepts #3 and #4).  Might require flipping and have the main go behind the station area.   Salem on the F&M has been removed and the logging between Kingfield and Bigelow becomes an emphasis of the layout.

Aisle arrangement of this version is very good.  As a single deck, the duck-under/gate could be 50+ inches clearance.

Concept #5: Another attempt at a single deck version of the Sn2 SR&RL

Grades

This layout is a single deck, so the only required grade is the one down to Rangeley staging.  As mentioned above, a single deck enables the whole railroad to be build at a good viewing height of say 55-57″.  It also ensures clearance over a 36″ (counter top height) high work bench and sinks.

Operations

This full layout could keep 6-8 operators busy in TT&TO operations.  Positions that could be modeled:

  • Dispatcher
  • Station Agents
  • 1 Farmington to Rangeley through Passenger Train crew (could use a single consist, less to model)
  • 2 SRRR/P&R crews (Farmington to Phillips to Rangeley)
  • 2-3 F&M crews (Strong to Bigelow)

Each crew would have it’s own engine, so that’s only 6-8 engines locomotives (Reasonably close to the current 5 available).

One operating concern is the lack of intermediate locations.  TT&TO operations are about being out on the line in dark territory, the crew makes decisions to go or not.  All towns are major towns (would have station agent), so there is no “dark feel”.

Phases

A railroad like this is a life time project (20 years or more).  So I’d like to have phases.  Here’s how I see the phases.

  • Phase 1:  Continuous Run:  Bigelow, Carrabassett, Kingfield, Strong (modified to connect Starbirds to South Strong), Baker Stream, Duckunder, continuous run connection.
  • Phase 2: Free-mo Farmington in proper place
  • Phase 3:  Correct Strong, build Phillips peninsula, and add Rangeley Staging.  Optionally, make new continuous run connection from Rangeley to Kingfield.

These phases seem very reasonable.  The first phase goes all the way around the room, but is not complicated or wide.

Things I like about this concept

  • Simple to build
  • Reasonable project with good phasing for construction.
  • Good human flow through the space
  • Includes my top locations to model.
  • Any location could be made Free-mo and added to my collection of locations to take on display (upper decks are hard to make moveable).  This would allow the pieces of the layout to move later on.

Things I don’t like about this concept

  • Kingfield is compromised
  • Short runs between locations, limited “dark” areas, trains go from major town to major town.
Posted in Layout Design, The Dream | Leave a comment

Dream Sn2 SR&RL: Concept #4- Another Partial Mushroom

A concept diagram is a sketch to see what will fit into a given space.  Additionally, I can use the profile capabilities in XTrkCAD to estimate track length and grades.  Only the fittest concepts move on to become detailed plans.

Concept #4 is another partial mushroom design. It attempt to fix some of the short comings of Concept #3.   Again, the focus is on the SRRR (Farmington to Phillips) and the F&M (Strong to Bigelow).  It reflects that modeling the P&R (Phillips to Rangeley) is not that important to me.

Reference map of the SR&RL

The Concept

Like Concept #3, Bigelow and Carrabassett on the F&M are mushroomed above Mapplewood and Farmington of the SRRR.  Bigelow is viewed from the inside of the peninsula and Farmington is viewed from the outside.

The emphasis of the layout is on the SRRR (Farmington to Phillips)  and the F&M (Strong to Bigelow).  Both are well represented with the SRRR being 140′ (vs. 121′ of Concept #3) and the F&M being 109′ (vs. 98′ in Concept #3) in length.  The P&R (Phillips to Rangeley) is represented by Rangeley staging below Starbirds.

This concept has 6+ feet for the Bigelow sawmill, much better than the 4 feet of Concept #3.  Farmington has ample length for all three yard areas, but the upper yard would be curved under Carrabassett.  Strong has it’s natural curve to the left (going north from Farmington) and Phillips has its prototype curve to the right (going north from Strong).  However, Phillips is scrunched and aisle way is tight.

Kingfield, as the hub of the F&M has potential but still remains tight.  Might require flipping and have the main go behind the station area.   Salem on the F&M has been removed and the logging between Kingfield and Bigelow becomes an emphasis of the layout.

The long mushroom peninsula present impedes access to the room.  For this reason, I’ve tried to keep the nod-under.  It makes fast access to the workbench/sink area.

Concept #4: Another partial mushroom design for the Sn2 SR&RL

Grades

This layout is on a continuous grade around the outside of the room.  The bottom is Farmington (40″) and the top is Bigelow (62″).  I’ve not calculated the grades, but I think grades around 2% could be used.  The Carrabassett and Mapplewood areas could be quite thin, so could be back to back rather than a mushroom.

A cool feature of the layout is the nod-under.  The track elevation would be 57″ or so, so a 55″ clearance could be had to enter the room.  At roughly 52″ around Kingfield/Starbirds there is sufficient clearance to clear the sink and workbench.

Bigelow (62″) the highest point and Starbirds (52″) share the same aisle.  Thus any platform at that location should be very low.  I’m also cautious to adding a platform there, as it is the access to the sink and workbench.  Most likely step ups would be provided for Bigelow and possibly Carrabassett.

Operations

This full layout could keep 8+ operators busy in TT&TO operations.  Positions that could be modeled:

  • Dispatcher
  • 1-2 Station Agents
  • 1 Farmington to Rangeley through Passenger Train crews (could use a single consist, less to model)
  • 2 SRRR/P&R crews (Farmington to Phillips to Rangeley)
  • 2-3 F&M crews (Strong to Bigelow)

Each crew would have it’s own engine, so that’s only 6-8 engines locomotives (Reasonably close to the current 5 available).

Phases

A railroad like this is a life time project (20 years or more).  So I’d like to have phases.  Here’s how I see the phases.

  • Phase 1:  Top of the Mushroom:  Bigelow, Carrabassett, Kingfield
  • Phase 2: Free-mo Farmington (Station and middle yard) Placed at Strong, add Starbirds.
  • Phase 3: Farmington moved to final location under Bigelow, temporary Strong passes straight through from Starbirds to South Strong
  • Phase 4:  Correct Strong, build Phillips Peninsula, and add Rangeley Staging.

These phases seem very reasonable, Truly a railroad that grows and grows no bigger than desired at any phase. The layout would be operational at each phase of construction.  However, the phases take up much of the room.  Other concepts leave more real estate in the room through the first 2-3 phases.

Things I like about this concept

  • Reasonable project with good phasing for construction.
  • Good human flow through the space
  • Nod-under access
  • No head bumping in the mushroom
  • Includes my top locations to model.

Things I don’t like about this concept

  • Kingfield is compromised
  • Phillips yard and engine facilities are compromised
  • Phillips aisle under is tight and pushed nearly under the stairs
  • Human flow through the room is convoluted (has a bit of cool factor, but would get old in day to day modeling and layout work)
Posted in Layout Design, The Dream, Uncategorized | Leave a comment